Sunday, September 07, 2008

Many people believe that the English language is sufficiently advanced, and that we have a vocabulary broad enough to describe virtually everything imaginable. I used to believe that English had all we would ever need, until five minutes ago when I realized (while in the shower) that there is a massive problem with the fundamentals of English.

This issue is best explained using a demonstration. Here's the scene: Mark is the head of a small marketing firm that's pitching a new ad campaign to one of their clients. Mark's subordinate - Fred - is the ambitious youngster who has designed the majority of the adverts for the campaign.

Mark: We've spent the past two weeks designing this ad campaign to be perfect for your target market, and I've done the majority of it myself to ensure that it's of the standard that you expect.

Fred: Actually I did most of the work.

Mark: You're a homo.

Fred: No I'm not.

Mark: Yes you are.

Fred: Am not.

Mark: Are.

Fred: Am not.

Mark: Are.

Fred: Am not.

Mark: Are.

Fred: Am not.

Mark: Are.

Fred: Am not.

Mark: Are.

Fred: Just a little.

It's clear that Fred was the loser of this fierce argument, but what lead to Mark's success? At first glance it appears as if Mark won simply because Fred is an anal jabber, but after analysing the debate more carefully you will realize that the English language gave Mark the upper hand.

I've managed to pinpoint the problem to the manner in which negatives are expressed in English. When Mark seeks to enforce his point - that Fred is a gentleman of the back door - he simply replies with "are". When Fred vehemently denies this claim (of being a poo pusher) he has to reply with "am not".

This is where the problem lies. "Are" consists of a single syllable, whereas "am not" consists of two syllables. According to my tests, "are" takes approximately 445 milliseconds to say, while "am not" takes between 900 milliseconds and 1 second to say! This huge disparity results in Mark being able to utter more "are" 's than the number of "am not" 's that Fred can declare. In fact, Mark would be able to double that number.

I find it unbelievable that we continue to use a language that is so blatantly biased against homosexuals. I mean, they have feelings too (quadriplegics, on the other hand....).

The simplest solution to this problem would be for Fred to reply with a single-syllabic word that means the same as "am not". Unfortunately there is no such word in the English language, so a word with the most similar meaning would have to be used instead - "aren't" - however this would make him sound unintelligent in front of their client. A foolish rectum rider is the last person the client would want handling their ad campaign, so Fred and Mark would certainly lose the marketing job.Instead, I suggest creating a new single-syllablic word with the same meaning as "am not". This word would have to be single-syllabic to ensure that it's pronunciation time is similar to that of "are". Simply contracting "am not" to "amn't" produces a word that is difficult to pronounce - especially during a heated debate. In addition, this may be confused with the word "dammit" which would probably lead to tension between the two speakers. Instead, a completely new word needs to be formed, and my contribution to the English language is that precise word: "Nog".